Bakhtiar Mohammadi: One Person’s Story

The Courts

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 11 February 1979-1994

In the immediate aftermath of the 11 February 1979 Revolution, an ad hoc tribunal, initially referred to as the Extraordinary Revolutionary Tribunal, was set up to try the officials of the previous regime, for which no specific procedures were devised. In a decree dated 24 February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary religious leader, appointed a cleric as Shari’a Judge and instructed him “to issue Shari’a-based rulings,” thereby establishing the foundation of a system of special courts.

Initially, the revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction was determined by the religious judge’s interpretation of the Shari’a (Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet, the 12 imams, and the teachings of Shi’a scholars. On 17 June 1979, the Revolutionary Courts and the Prosecutor’s Office Rules of Procedure, which was only selectively observed, established the latter’s jurisdiction and make-up.

The Courts’ jurisdiction encompassed a wide array of offenses including moharebeh (“waging war with God”), efsad e fel arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”), crimes against national and international security, economic crimes, murder, profiteering, prostitution, rape, and narcotic drugs-related crimes. The law required that two of the three principal members of the Revolutionary Courts be Shari’a judges.

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 1994-2002

With the adoption of the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994, and the Code of Criminal Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts of 19 September 1999, a uniform code of procedure was applied to both revolutionary and general courts. The jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts was limited to 6 categories of offenses:

1. Crimes against national and international security,“moharebeh” (enmity with god) and “efsad e fel arz” (corruption on earth;)

2. defaming Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader;

3. plotting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, armed action, terrorism, and sabotage;

4. espionage;

5. smuggling and drug-related crimes; 6. claims under Principle 49 (economic crimes) of the Constitution.

6. Furthermore, pursuant to the Law on the Manner of Punishing Individuals Engaged in Unauthorized Audio and Visual Activities, Article 11, the revolutionary courts have jurisdiction over crimes that fall within the purview of said Law, including production and distribution of obscene materials and misuse and abuse thereof.

These courts continued, however, to try cases falling outside their jurisdiction, such as theft and sexual offenses. Further, the vagueness of laws regarding national security allowed the revolutionary courts to try political and media crimes whenever they wished to do so.

The new law eliminated the Prosecutor’s Office and gave the judges inthe Revolutionary Courts the power to perform the duties of the prosecutor, as well as their own, in any case brought before them.

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 2002-Present

The Amended Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 2002 reinstated the Prosecutor’s Office in both revolutionary and general courts. In cases involving political and media crimes, revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction overlaps with that of Province Criminal Courts.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014, and its coming into force in June 2015, the jurisdiction of the revolutionary courts remains unchanged, with slight modifications in procedural aspects of adjudication. For instance, the new law provides that for crimes subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, or higher, the revolutionary court shall convene with three judges, whereas, prior to the passage of this law, adjudication of all crimes within the jurisdiction of revolutionary courts took place with only a single judge.

The Appellate System of Revolutionary Courts, 1979-Present

From their inception until 1994, the rulings of the Revolutionary Courts were not subject to appeal. In the early 1980s a court entitled the Supreme Court of Qom was established in the city of Qom and which reviewed cases of execution and confiscation of properties, thereby forming a first tier form of appeal. The exact date of the creation of the court is not clear, but, based on available information, the court became operational in the early 1980s, even though Ayatollah Khomeini's official order for its creation is dated 1985. The court’s procedure was not systematic and did not meet the international standards for a court of appeals; there was no official record of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Qom was dissolved in 1989.

The Law of 14 June 1994 subjected the Courts’ decisions to appeal. An appellate court was established at each provincial capital, called the Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by the Revolutionary Courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those involving capital punishment.

Narcotic drugs-related crimes constitute a significant exception to the appeals process. Governed by the Anti-Narcotic Drugs Law of 1988, as Amended on 8 November 1997 and 31 July 3 2010, these crimes are within the jurisdiction of, and are adjudicated on a regular basis by, Revolutionary Courts whose decisions are final. After being handed down by the judge, death sentences are sent to the Prosecutor General or the Head of the Supreme Court as a matter of administrative approval.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 (and its coming into force in June 2015), however, drug related crimes became subject to appeal as well.

General Courts, 1979-1982

In cases not falling under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts, the system devised under the previous regime continued to function in parallel with new systems devised by laws passed by the Judicial Council, one of which, entitled The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, radically changed the entire structure and categorization of the courts. It divided the courts in three branches: Criminal, Civil, and Peace (a sort of arbitration court dealing with minor financial and other disputes). Specialized courts such as family courts were eliminated.

General Courts, 1982-1994

The Law of the Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1982 established a new criminal courts system, Criminal Courts I and II. Criminal Court I, established only in provincial capitals, had jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Criminal Court II heard less serious crimes.

General Courts, 1994-2002

The Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994 established umbrella courts called General Courts, which replaced and dissolved pre-existing civil and criminal courts. The law dissolved the Prosecutor’s offices and tasked a single person with the roles of judge, prosecutor, and investigator.

General Courts, 2002-2015

In 2002, the 1994 Law was amended, reviving the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in General Courts. The prosecution offices were re-established in a gradual process over several years. The amended law also re-established specialized branches within general courts dealing separately with criminal and civil matters. In addition, this law allocated a number of branches of the Province Court of Appeals to have original jurisdiction over a number of cases including the most serious offenses, as well as political and media crimes. In these cases, the branches are called the Province Criminal Court.

General Courts, 2015 to Today

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, general courts underwent certain changes as well. Criminal courts were divided into Criminal Court One, Criminal Court Two, Military Court, Juvenile Court, and Revolutionary Court. Criminal Court One has jurisdiction over serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, and higher, as well as political and media crimes. Criminal Court Two has jurisdiction over other crimes. Another change consists of the establishment of juvenile courts, which adjudicates crimes committed by individuals less than 18 years of age. In cases where the individuals less than 18 commit serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, however, Criminal Court One will have jurisdiction, observing rules of juvenile criminal procedure.

The Appellate System of General Courts, 1979-Present

The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, abolished appeal of most criminal courts’ decisions. The law of 1982 restricted the appeal possibility even further. According to the Islamic Republic authorities’ interpretation of Islamic Law, a qualified jurist’s decisions were not subject to appeal except under special circumstances, such as when the judge realized his own mistake, or another judge advised him so, or when he did not have jurisdiction over the case. Even in such situations, the case would not go to a higher court but would be subject to review by the same judge or another judge at his level. The judges were even urged to call their verdicts “opinions,” so that the possible change in the verdict would not be “haram” (“sinful,” the highest level of prohibition in Islam, disobedience of which would result in a sin).

In October 1988, the Majles (Iranian parliament) passed a law regarding review of court judgments. This law provided for an appeal if the conviction was claimed to be based on invalid documentation or false testimony. The defendant could also base an appeal on a point of law or a procedural violation.

The appellate system was expanded in other laws in the late 1980s and in 1993. The Law for the Establishment of Criminal Courts I and II of 11 July 1989 created the Branches of the Supreme Court. Crimes of less importance, tried in Criminal Court II, were subject to review by Criminal Court I.

For the most important crimes involving death punishment, which were under the jurisdiction of Criminal Court I, the law allowed limited appeal to the Branches of the Supreme Court. Defendants had the right to petition the Supreme Court for appeal in certain cases involving false testimony or procedural violations, and if granted, the case would be remanded to either another criminal court or the original one.

Finally, the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 1994, as amended in 2002, established an appellate court at each provincial capital, called Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by both general and revolutionary courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those carrying the death penalty, as well as decisions made by the Province Criminal Court.

The amended law of 2002, continued the appellate procedure to the Branches of the Supreme Court established by the afore-mentioned law of 11 July 1989

The Supreme Court continues to be the competent authority to rule on new trials, which have been provided for in limited circumstances.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, the Court of Appeals shall be the competent authority to hear appeals from Criminal Court Two decisions, and the Supreme Court shall hear appeals from Criminal Court One decisions.

Special Courts for the Clergy

These courts are rooted in a 1979 decree, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, which established a committee of religious and noble figures in every region to purge the clergy of anti-revolutionary elements under the supervision of the Revolutionary Courts. Between late 1981 and 1984, a special court in the city of Qom handled, though not systematically, the trial of clerics.

On 29 July 1987, Ayatollah Khomeini officially appointed a prosecutor and a member of the clergy as Shari’a judge for Special Courts for the Clergy. On 6 August 1990, a directive was issued regulating the conduct of these courts, the jurisdictional ambiguity of which is such that it effectively extends to “anyone where one of the parties is a cleric” and to “all matters in which the Court is designated as competent by the Supreme Leader.”

The court, which was not mentioned in the Islamic Republic's constitution, was mandated to try “pseudo clerics, those related to/connected with the clergy, for public and/or anti-revolutionary crimes, and violations of the prestige of the clergy,” and where the principal suspect is a member of the clergy, “any co-conspirator or assistant, whether a cleric or not.”

These courts are generally not open to the public and can issue sentences for all acts and omissions punishable under codified Iranian laws or Shari’a or for any other acts or omissions which can bring dishonor to the clergy or to the Islamic Revolution. Further, in certain particular cases – which have not been defined – where no punishment has been devised by either the Penal Code or even the Shari’a, the Court “can rule as it deems fit.”

The Appellate System of the Special Court for the Clergy, 1979-Present

There is no information on any appeal process for the Special Court for the Clergy prior to the 1990 directive. Article 49 of said directive set up, however, an appeals court called Special Appellate Court for the Clergy, the head of which is appointed by the Supreme Leader, to which the decisions of the lower court can be appealed.

Military Courts

The military court system, independent from the judiciary under the previous regime, became a part of it on 1 December 1981. The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces, established in 1986, replaced and merged other military courts and tribunals in existence at the time, namely the pre-revolution Judiciary Organization of the Army, the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Army (established on 8 December 1979), and the Revolutionary and General Court for the Revolutionary Guards (established on 15 July 1979.) The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces has its own Criminal Code and follows the country’s general rules of criminal procedure.

The Law of the Criminal Procedure of the Armed Forces of 15 May 1985 created Military Courts I and II. Military Court I has jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Military Court II hears less serious crimes.

The Appellate System of Military Courts, 1979-Present

The law of 8 December 1979, establishing the Revolutionary Military Court, did not provide for any appeals. The Law of 15 May 1985 created a system of appeals through the creation of a two-tier system of courts. The decisions of Military Court II were subject to review by Military Court I. This law also provided that multiple Branches of the Supreme Court be designated as the appellate court to review decisions of Military Court I.

The judges

1979-1997: Prosecutors and judges are not necessarily law graduates and jurists. Shortly after the Islamic Revolution, a five-member Committee was established to purge the judicial system of undesirable elements, pursuant to the Legal Bill for the Modification of the Judiciary and the Law for Hiring Judges of 8 March 1979. The power of the committee was absolute and its decisions, resulting in a widespread purge of the judiciary, final.

The Law for the Conditions of Selection of Judges of 4 May 1981 established the conditions of eligibility for judges. The latter were to be hired among men who were legitimate children and had practical commitment to Islam and allegiance to the Islamic Republic. The law, which led to the hiring of clerics and Islamic legal scholars, also allowed hiring practically anyone as a judge who could “obtain the Judicial High Council’s permission.” Moreover, Note 2 of the Amendments of 4 October 1982 to this law allowed widespread employment of seminary students “who ha[d] general knowledge equivalent to a high school diploma” as judges at prosecutor’s offices in general as well as Revolutionary Courts.

By 1989, the judiciary counted about 2,000 new judges trained in theological seminaries (graduates and students) and political appointees, many having replaced judges trained in law schools.

1997-Present: As of this writing (2013) the Law for Hiring Judges and its amendments of 4 October 1982, 7 February 1987, and 9 May 1988 are in full force and form the basis for hiring judges. The Executive Rules of Procedure of 22 December 1997 subjected such hiring to passing an entrance examination and successful completion of an apprenticeship program, the duration of which ranges between one and two years. The law does not limit hiring to men only but does not specify in what capacity women will be functioning, other than an advisory one.

Currently, judges are selected in accordance with the Guidelines on the Recruitment, Selection, and Internship for Judicial Candidates and the Hiring of Judges.

Dismissal of Judges: From 1979 to 1989, the judiciary was run by the Supreme Judicial Council which was composed of the head of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General (both of whom were appointed by the Supreme Leader), and three judges elected by the entire body of judges in the country. The Council had the power to hire and dismiss judges in accordance with the law.

The constitutional reforms of 1989 substituted the Supreme Judicial Council with one person, the Head of the Judiciary. The Supreme Leader, whose mandate is not subject to popular vote, appoints the Head of the Judiciary for a 5-year term. The latter has significant power to influence the dismissal of judges. Dismissal cases are referred to three types of disciplinary courts, presided over by judges appointed by the Head of the Judiciary, who has veto power over any decisions made by the relevant courts.

Two of these courts, established in 1991 and 2011, are charged with examining the judges’ conduct from a religious and ideological standpoint. The process does not necessarily involve the defendant and the final decision, left to the Head of the Judiciary, is not subject to appeal.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

He was in a very bad state of mind and had attempted suicide four times.

News of Mr. Bakhtiar Mohammadi’s execution was published in the Hengav website on January 3, 2018. Additional information about this case was obtained from the Boroumand Center’s interview with his cousin, as well as research conducted by the Boroumand Center (February 10, 2018).

Mr. Bakhtiar Mohammadi, child of Mahmud, was 36 years old, an adherent of Sunni Islam, an ethnic Kurd, married, from the town of Ravansar, and residing in the town of Paveh in Kermanshah Province. He had a high school education. He had previously been a taxi driver, but then sold his taxi and opened a bakery from the proceeds of that sale.

According to Mr. Mohammadi’s cousin, he was the family’s second child, who, after the death of his father in 2003-04, was having a hard time providing for his family’s expenses and was in a bad mental state. Mr. Mohammadi had gotten married in 2008-09, and had made a nice life for himself and his family through tremendous effort. In 2011-12, Mr. Mohammadi’s wife developed lung cancer, and he himself, following a car accident in which he suffered substantial injuries, became addicted to Tramadol* which he was taking for pain, a pill that mentally changed him. According to the information contained in the Court decision, in addition to Tramadol, he also used meth.

Based on available information, Mr. Mohammadi was a quiet man and an introvert. After his father’s death, he became even more introverted and reclusive, and aside from his very close friends, had very limited interaction with others.

Mr. Mohammadi’s case is related to the murder of his pregnant wife.

Arrest and detention

Mr. Mohammadi turned himself in to the police in Paveh, at 6:30 AM on the morning of May 2, 2013, and stated that he had killed his pregnant wife.

In preliminary investigations, he stated that he had killed his wife without a motive, that he had no issues with her, and that he did not intend to marry again; that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the murder, and had killed his wife simply because he had had enough of life. (Documents available at the Boroumand Center).

Mr. Mohammadi turned himself in to the police and stated that he had murdered his wife.

Mr. Mohammadi was taken to the city of Kermanshah’s Diesel Abad Prison in June 2013. According to a person with knowledge of the case, he was in a very bad state of mind after the issuance of his sentence and had tried to commit suicide in jail by taking pills and had ended up being hospitalized for a week at Kermanshah’s Imam Khomeini Prison. Mr. Mohammadi sometimes would not even go the visitation hall to meet with his family due to his awful mental condition. He was very reclusive in jail. He was incarcerated at Diesel Abad Prison for four years.

Trial

Kermanshah Province Criminal Court, Branch One, tried Mr. Mohammadi in two sessions, on March 10, and May 30, 2015. The trial took place in the presence of Mr. Mohammadi’s family, the victim’s attorney, and Mr. Mohammadi’s court-appointed attorney.

Based on available information, the next of kin’s family requested the Court for Qesas of life for Mr. Mohammadi, along with payment of the difference in Diah, as well as the Diah for the unborn child (four-month-old boy).

Charges

Mr. Mohammadi was charged with “the intentional murder of his pregnant wife”. He was accused of having strangled his pregnant wife with his waist-shawl on May 2, 2013.

Evidence of Guilt

Mr. Mohammadi’s admissions at various stages of the process were the basis for the issuance of the sentence in his case. The Medical Examiner’s report detailing the cause of death; re-construction of the crime scene; recovery of the victim’s body; Mr. Mohammadi’s fingerprints on his waist-shawl as the murder weapon; and the Medical Examiner’s report as to Mr. Mohammadi being of sound mind at the time of the murder and dismissing insanity; were among other evidence presented against him at trial. (Interview with a person with knowledge of the case, and documentation existing at the Boroumand Center).

Defense

Based on available information, in September 2014, Mr. Mohammadi submitted a brief to the court from Diesel Abad Prison, stating that he had been under the influence of meth** at the time of the murder and was not in a normal state. (Documentation existing at the Boroumand Center).

According to Mr. Mohammadi’s cousin, he had become addicted to Tramadol after his car accident in 2013 and had then turned to drugs, encouraged by his friends. (Boroumand Center interview).

Based on available information, Mr. Mohammadi was suffering from mental problems due to issues related to his life, and had unsuccessfully attempted suicide several times, one of which was during his incarceration. According to Mr. Mohammadi, he had attempted suicide in 2006 by stabbing himself and had spent 15 days in the hospital. (Interview with a person with knowledge of the case, and documentation available at the Boroumand Center). Furthermore, his mental state had started to deteriorate a month prior to the murder, and that was why he had gone to a religious official in the town of Bayengan and had prayed and told him: “I’m sick of life and I feel the devil inside me.” That person had then suggested to him “to conduct his daily prayers on time”. According to Mr. Mohammadi, during the month culminating in the murder, he had tried to kill himself several times. He had decided to kill himself with a handgun but had not been able to procure one. A week prior to the event, he had unsuccessfully tried to asphyxiate himself using the gas from the gas heater for three hours. He had also tried to throw himself in front of a car once.

Based on available documentation, at trial, his attorney had said in Mr. Mohammadi’s defense, that on the night of the murder, he had had dinner with his wife and had not had any particular arguments with her, but that he was not in a normal state. Even though he knew full well that the punishment for murder was the death penalty, he did not run away and turned himself in to the police after committing the murder, and that was due to his adverse and abnormal mental state. Mr. Mohammadi’s attorney added that several witnesses had testified to Mr. Mohammadi’s use of psychotropic substances as well as his several suicide attempts, all of which indicated that he was not of sound mind and lacked a normal mental state. Mr. Mohammadi’s attorney requested that the case be re-submitted to the Medical Examiner’s Office [for evaluation]. Based on available documentation, the court found no history of violence or prior crimes, and found no motive for the murder. (Interview with a person with knowledge of the case, and documentation available at the Boroumand Center).

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Mr. Bakhtiar Mohammadi’s Case

The evidence in this case indicates that Bakhtiar Mohammadi murdered his pregnant wife when he had no issues with her whatsoever. He turned himself in after the murder and subsequently confessed to killing his wife at all stages of preliminary investigations and trial. The evidence shows that there was no motive for the murder. According to available evidence, he had previously attempted suicide several times and his mental state showed that he was not of a fully healthy mind [and in full control of his mental capacities]. Furthermore, he regularly used narcotic drugs, more specifically, methamphetamines. On the night of the crime, he had used meth. Considering that the abuse of methamphetamine also leads to psychological impairment, it can be said that Bakhtiar Mohammadi was not in a normal state [at the time of the murder]. Pursuant to [general] principles of criminal law, a person is responsible for his/her actions only when [he/she is in control of his/her faculties] and the criminal act is committed willfully. Nevertheless, the Medical Examiner’s office opined that he was mentally healthy, whereas existing evidence indicates that this opinion does not conform to the facts of the case. Bakhtiar Mohammadi’s attorney requested that his client’s mental health be re-evaluated by the Medical Examiner’s Office, which request was denied by the court. It therefore seems that sufficient investigations were not conducted into Bakhtiar Mohammadi’s mental and psychological state.

Judgment

On May 30, 2015, pursuant to the next of kin’s request and to Islamic Penal Code (new version) Article 290 (a) *** and Articles 351, 355, 357, 360, 381, 382, 716 ****, and Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 179, and Surah Osara, Verse 33 *****, Kermanshah Province Criminal Court, Branch One, sentenced Mr Bakhtiar Mohammadi to death (Qesas of life). The Court further sentenced Mr. Mohammadi to three years imprisonment for killing a fetus. The sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The authorities did not give Mr. Mohammadi’s family the opportunity to see him one last time.

The efforts of Mr. Mohammadi’s family to obtain the forgiveness of the victim’s family did not bear fruit, and Mr. Mohammadi was hanged in Kermanshah’s Diesel Abad prison on January 3, 2018, without his family or his attorney being informed. The authorities unjustifiably deprived Mr. Mohammadi and his family of one last visitation.

Mr. Mohammadi’s family learned of his hanging through a call by one of his ward mates. They took possession of Mr. Mohammadi’s body in the afternoon of the same day upon going to Kermanshah Medical Examiner’s Office, and buried him in Ravansar’s Galeh Chermo cemetery. (Boroumand Center interview with a person with knowledge of the case).

…………………………………………………………………………….

*Tramadol’s pain control mechanism is similar to morphine. Its continued use causes physical and mental dependence similar to drug addiction, and may sometimes also cause delusions. The simultaneous use of this substance with alcohol, opium and its derivatives, as well as sedatives such as andazepam, diazepam, and lorazepam is extremely dangerous since it can disrupt the function of the kidneys, the brain, and severely impede respiration.

**Methamphetamines have a very powerful effect on the brain and their use may sometime cause belligerent and hostile behavior, as well as violence. Insanity and psychosis, delusions, suspiciousness, paranoia, and radical mood swings are the effects of long term use of meth.

*** “Article 290: A crime is considered to be intentional in the following cases:

(a) When the perpetrator intends to commit, through an act, a crime on a specific person or persons or a non-specific person or persons within a group, and the intended crime or a similar crime is then committed, regardless of whether the perpetrated act typically causes the commission of that crime or a similar crime or not.”

**** Article 351: The next of kin means the murder victim’s heirs except his or her spouse, who does not have the right to Qesas.”

Article 355: Regarding Article 354* of this law, the fetus is considered next of kin if it is born alive.

*Article 354: If the crime victim or all or some of the next of kin are under the legal age or are insane, their parent or guardian, taking into consideration what is expedient for them, has the right to Qesas, settle, or forgive, or in the alternative, wait until they are of legal age or their condition improves. If some of the next of kin are of legal age and are reasonable and want Qesas, they can obtain Qesas; however, if the parent or guardian of a minor or insane person wants payment of their share of Diah from them, they must do as he wants. This Article also applies to cases where the right to Qesas is transferred to the heirs of the crime victim or the next of kin because of their death. This rule also applies ex post facto to crimes that were committed prior to this law coming into force.

Article 357: If the perpetrator or the accomplice in an intentional crime is one of the heirs, he/she shall not be considered to be a next of kin and does not have the right to Qesas or Diah, and does not inherit the right to Qesas.

Article 360: In cases where carrying out Qesas requires payment of the difference of Diah to the person who is the object of Qesas, the person who has the right o Qesas has the power to choose between Qesas with payment of the difference in Diah and obtaining the Diah amount prescribed by law, without the perpetrator’s agreement.

Article 381: The punishment for intentional murder is Qesas, provided the next of kin so demands and other conditions prescribed by law are met; otherwise it shall be based on Diah and Ta’zir in accordance with other provisions of the law.

Article 382: If a Moslem woman is killed intentionally, the right to Qesas is firm; however, if the murderer is a Moslem man, the next of kin must pay him, prior to Qesas, half of the complete Diah; and if the murderer is a non-Moslem man, he shall be subjected to Qesas without any payments. Where a non-Moslem man has murdered a non-Moslem woman, it is necessary to pay the difference in their Diahs.

Article 417: In carrying out Qesas, the Supreme leader’s permission or that of his representative is required.”

*****Verses:

Verse 179: And there is for you in Qesas (legal retribution) the saving of life, O you [people] of understanding and wisdom, [and his is Allah’s decree] that you may become righteous [and not kill others] and be fearful [and not engage in murder and killings].

Verse 33: And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by Allah and the Divine law].

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯

Human rights violations in this case